A collaborative research project

November 2014

Written by Pam Burnard, Nick Brown,

Franziska Florack, Louis Major,
Zsolt Lavicza, and Alan Blackwell
Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - page 2

1. Introduction - page 3
1.1 Project overview
1.2 An introduction to live coding
1.3 Interest to the arts, education and technology sectors
2. The research process - page 10
2.1 Research proposition
2.2 Research objectives
2.3 Key steps and processes
2.4 Partnerships: roles and responsibilities
3. Findings - page 14
3.1 Learning from an arts-led partnership
3.2 Some research statistics
3.3 The students perspectives: digital music journeying
4. Insights and implications - page 25
4.1 Building artists and audiences through engagement
with young people and learning
4.2 Next steps
4.3 Planning for new projects: a glimpse of the future
5. References - page 28

Sonic Pi: Live & Coding Research Report 1 of 28

Executive Summary

Digital technologies are redeining established practices and creating new opportunities
for innovation across formal and informal music education settings and arts venues.
The Sonic Pi: Live & Coding (SPL&C) project demonstrates a new model for arts-led
partnerships in which professional artists and arts organisations work with instrumental
teachers and local schools to develop digital music opportunities. Sonic Pi v2.0 is a
system that allows children to create music of a high technical standard in a range of
genres and in a live performance context. It does this not just by simulating the behaviour
of “professional” instruments and recording technology, but by giving learners the tools
to construct their own digital sounds through working with the actual software code,
resulting in a fully customisable musical instrument. The result helps children to gain
skills and experience of digital technology as a creative and empowering medium.
The SPL&C project represents an urgent response to: (i) the continued rise of digital
media as a deining aspect of 21st century arts, (ii) the ongoing debates and criticisms
about the relevance of music education and the quality and diversity of provision by
music education hubs and (iii) the new computing curriculum., SPL&C has shown
the potential for artists to lead digital music education using innovative tools for
live performance that can be applied to create exciting and engaging digital music
opportunities. In this report explores the way that technology partners, artists, arts
organisations and educators explored, deined and expressed a mutual engagement and
partnership, providing windows into each other’s practices. Practical strategies focus on
how arts organisations can engage with young people - enhancing digital and musical
literacies, and working as co-producers and co-creators to inspire new thinking and
practices for both formal and informal learning settings.
In this project, experimental interventions were made into both formal (school music
education in six week blocks) and informal (a ive-day summer school at a performing
arts venue) learning environments.

Here are the key indings:

l Learning to live code music performance introduces

a driving force for change in music education
l Digital music making engages young people
in new and diferent learning pathways
l Arts-led partnerships ofer opportunities to create
new pedagogic practices which make a positive impact
on digital learning communities

Sonic Pi: Live & Coding Research Report 2 of 28

1. Introduction

1.1 Project overview

The Sonic Pi: Live & Coding (SPL&C) project sought to develop a model for arts led
partnerships that could transform music education by exploring the creative potential of
live coding to provide new pathways for young people into digital music. The research
centered process worked across arts, technology and education partners with young
people to develop software program Sonic Pi so that, when used with a Raspberry
Pi computer, it would become a fully customisable musical instrument using code for
compositions, timbre and interaction. Further, a toolkit of resources was developed to
support delivery of the SPL&C model, including a lesson plans plus guidance notes, a
set of short ilms, inspirational works by artists and Sonic Pi v2.0.
The SPL&C partnership came together in May 2013 after seeing the potential for Sonic
Pi, which had previously been tested in a school in Dagenham (v1.0), using music to
engage children in learning computer science. The broad partnership comprises: two
music education hubs (Cambridgeshire Music and Hertfordshire Music Service), two
Bridge organisations (Norfolk & Norwich Festival Bridge and Royal Opera House Bridge),
the project lead and arts partner (Cambridge Junction), the technology partner (the
Raspberry Pi Foundation with the University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory) and the
research partner (University of Cambridge Faculty of Education).
In January 2014, funding for the project was awarded by the Digital R&D Fund for the
Arts (£124,663) and Cambridgeshire Music Partnership (£14,087), and during February/
March 2014, a project manager and the lead artists were recruited. The Sonic Pi software
was constantly modiied and improved throughout the project based on discussions
with and feedback from everyone involved including artists, teachers and young people,
resulting in Sonic Pi v2.0.

Sonic Pi: Live & Coding Research Report 3 of 28

The project was delivered in three distinct phases:
i) Development: during April, a set of four one-day workshops and training days with
people involved in delivering the project (the lead artists, the creator of Sonic Pi, two
instrumental teachers, the researcher, the project director and project manager, who
were joined by two music teachers, two ICT teachers and two IT support staf for the
two schools for the third session). The fourth workshop trained the team as Arts Award
Assessors. This was followed by a period of time in May for developing the lesson plans,
artistic interventions and building the software based on feedback from the workshops.
ii) Delivery: during June and July 2014, two six week trials in two secondary schools
(Freman College, Hertfordshire & Coleridge Community College, Cambridge) with Key
Stage 3 students. The trials were staggered so that the learning from the irst school
could be used to inform delivery in the second school and the delivery team worked
closely together between lessons to adapt and changes approaches, materials and the
software. At the end of July, the model was tested in an informal, out of schools situation
through a ive day summer school for ifty-seven 10-14 years olds, with each being given
the opportunity to work towards a Bronze Arts Award qualiication over the course of
the week.
iii) Dissemination: August to November 2014 focuses on writing up the research,
reviewing the project, and reining the resources for the toolkit, which is being launched
on 4 November 2014 to coincide with a national SPL&C summit, which will invite
discussion and input from delegates. Beyond this, attention will focus on next steps
and further dissemination of the model and research.
The outcomes from the SPL&C project – the SPL&C toolkit of resources - are available
at www.soncipiliveandcoding.com.

Sonic Pi: Live & Coding Research Report 4 of 28

1.2 An introduction to live coding
What is live coding?
Live coding is a novel medium that provides ways to combine traditionally separate
musical concepts of composition, performance, instruments, and notation through
programming. It is a digital genre that SPL&C has shown to ofer exciting pathways
for the direct engagement of arts professionals in education. On-the-ly computer
programming is used to communicate the musical intentions of the live coder to the
computer. Programming skills involve the choice of code, its design, abstraction and
implementation, the communication of musical intention through computer code.
How is it performed?
A live coder will usually perform on a computer with the code
projected onto a screen so that the audience can see it, writing
and then augmenting the code to make and change the sounds
being played. The screen projection of code is an important and
signiicant feature of both the performer’s programming and
non-programming actions, demonstrating the liveness of the
musical interaction. The coding activity involves curatorial skills,
such as the creation of a new piece from existing recordings,
an arrangement of an old piece or a newly improvised piece
performed at a concert. Some live coders arrive at a performance
with pre-prepared code and a plan around how they will develop
the music as they augment it, whereas others take a far more
improvisational and exploratory approach, starting with a blank
screen and building up the sound, allowing it to guide their
musical journey.
Challenges in embracing live coding
Live coding languages are highly technical, requiring advanced programming skills.
The creation of Sonic Pi introduced an entry level live coding environment suitable for
beginners, including children and young people, which can generate sophisticated sounds.
The provision of high quality creative learning opportunities and learning pathways for
schools and informal educational contexts is a priority for many arts organisations and
artists. Bringing together artists, software designers, computer scientists, teachers and
non-teaching staf in the classroom ofers an interesting dynamic for introducing and
testing new creative technologies such as Sonic Pi in schools.
With the current provision of credible digital music making in schools limited, it is
no surprise that young people, especially the disadvantaged, are turning to the more
accessible ways of exploring digital music-making. Institutions would be wise to
recognise the importance of presenting young people with opportunities to play and
engage in digital music within both in-school and outside-school arts-music programs
that inspire new thinking and practice, encouraging creative curiosity and
the development of new skills using innovative, low cost technology.

Sonic Pi: Live & Coding Research Report 5 of 28

1.3 Interest to the arts, education and technology sectors
Introducing Sonic Pi v2.0, the Raspberry Pi
and the link to the new computing curriculum
A registered charity founded in 2009, the Raspberry Pi foundation created a low cost
(£25) credit-card sized computer that was produced to encourage children and young
people all over the world to learn programming. Sonic Pi is a computer program,
developed by Dr Sam Aaron for the Raspberry Pi, to teach children computer science
by engaging their interest in music. As part of the SPL&C project, Sonic Pi v.2.0 has
transformed the Raspberry Pi into a fully customisable musical instrument, suitable for
use within music education settings.
Applications like Sonic Pi v2.0 also allow the educational sector to position computer
science and computational thinking as general-purpose skills which can be used
across the full breadth of the curriculum. Traditionally, computer science has not been
considered as a core curriculum subject in the UK (Drummond, 2009). This has resulted
in most high school students not being introduced to topics such as programming
(Carter, 2006). Since 2012, there has been a wholesale reform of the English school
computing curriculum, and substantial movement in Scotland and Wales (McAuley,
2012). From September 2014 computing will have a new statutory computing curriculum
and, for the irst time, will become part of every child’s education. (Peyton Jones, 2013).
This overhaul of computing and digital literacy in UK schools presents a signiicant
opportunity to halt the decline of student interest in the subject (Black et al., 2013), and
represents the start of a computing education revolution that will afect over seven million
pupils aged ive to sixteen (Bacon, 2014).
Developing the place of digital music-making in music education
The rise of digital media is a deining
aspect of 21st century music-making,
reception and distribution and its
use brings changes to arts-culture
industries and education sector practices
(Hasmondhalgh and Baker, 2011).
Technological changes have gone hand
in hand with changes in digital music
culture and behaviour including music
composition especially with the advent
of computer/laptop accessibility. New
music technologies point to a need for
new pedagogies to foster new pathways into music and musical careers suggesting the
need for a diferent kind of music teacher as the technologies open up new spaces for
new creativities. Recent changes in music technology have challenged composers and
educators to think diferently about their music creations (Field, 2007). Computer-based
composing creates diferent treatments of time, texture, and timbre (i.e. more access

Sonic Pi: Live & Coding Research Report 6 of 28

and control in mixing diferent sound sources). All of this gives prevalence to ways of
facilitating innovative, exciting and engaging digital music opportunities (i.e. learning
pathways) for young people, teachers and artists who are serious about making 21st
century music education relevant.
Interest to music educators and music education hubs
‘Music Education Hubs’ are groups of organisations including arts organisations and
schools, led by their predecessor local authority music services, who are tasked with
organising music education activities within a deined geographical area . SPL&C
will be of interest to them as a model of innovation that delivers on priorities within
the national music plan and addresses Ofsted criticism of music hubs by diversifying
musical experiences and bringing the professional arts sector, through both experimental
digital artists and instrumental teachers, into the classroom. Music education hubs are
tasked with providing high quality provision of music-making that brings social, personal
and economic beneits to music teachers and leaders, and involving strategies for re-
engaging disafected young people and those facing barriers to accessing music, all
within a context of decreasing funding. Hubs not only augment and support music
teaching in schools, they also support instrumental teacher professional development
by drawing on the expertise of partners involving, for example, collaborations with
contemporary music groups, community musicians, and leading edge popular
performing artists. This project develop a model which exempliies quality engagement
and creates new pathways into digital music-making for instrumental teachers who
worked closely with young people engaging them in digital music opportunities.
Interest to digital media and music sectors
Engagement with out-of-school music-arts and the rise of digital media is a deining
aspect of 21st century music-making and its use is bringing changes to music
classrooms. The arts sector has a long and established track record of working
with schools and young people, and there are an increasing number of examples of
collaborative partnerships between schools as well as other arts/music learning sites
and universities that attempt to strengthen the link between the music that young people
encounter in school and that which is experienced outside school. Where this outside-of-
school music is integrated into the school music program, it follows that students’ levels
of enjoyment and engagement with music is higher. There is little evidence that relying
solely on the school system, as it is presently structured, will bring about positive change
(O’Neill, S. (2012). Young People and Music Participation Project).

Sonic Pi: Live & Coding Research Report 7 of 28

Interest to the wider arts sector
The project will be of interest to the wider
arts sector in that it explores the potential
for the arts to take the lead in innovative
digital projects, using arts approaches/
ways of working that inspire new
thinking and practices amongst project
partners. Working in partnership with
arts organisations such as Cambridge
Junction, introduces techniques and
partnership-working that for many schools
and music hubs is unfamiliar territory. The
involvement of artists such as Juneau
Projects brings a level of experimentation and creative exploration that ensured a unique,
inspiring and high quality experience for all involved.
SPL&C also explores the creative potential of live coding as an artform through various
artistic explorations both in (lessons led by Juneau Projects) and beyond (summer
school, pop-pi videos) the classroom.
Further, it support the development of artistic interests and skills across formal (in
school) and informal (summer school) learning communities to provide new pathways for
young people into digital music. Developing the use of Raspberry Pi hardware as a fully
customisable musical instrument for using code to compose, improvise and perform
simultaneously, encourages a future talent pipeline of artists who have the skills and
conidence to use digital technology. Interest to those seeking to develop the programing
skills of young people.
Interest to those seeking to develop the programing skills of young people
The signiicance of this project is partly based on the part it can play in delivering
the new primary and secondary subject ‘Computing’. The future mode of teaching
‘computing’ in the primary and secondary schools could be transformed through
adventures in coding music with Sonic Pi v2.0. Due to their apparent luency with
digital technologies, it has become commonplace to refer to young people as ‘digital
natives’ (Resnick, 2009). Having been immersed in technology all their lives, it has been
argued that these students possess impressive and under-utilised technical skills and
new learning preferences (Bennett et al., 2008). Regardless of whether ‘digital natives’
possess competencies that render them better able to manipulate technology, the
learning of programming is possible in both formal and informal settings. Research
on learning programming in schools (Seraini, 2011), ‘after-school’ clubs (Maloney et
al., 2008) and the virtual use of web-based resources (Pritchard & Vasiga, 2013) is
demonstrative of the diverse ways programming has been taught. Moreover, through
their everyday interactions with technology, many contemporary children already engage
in a computing milieu where they are unwittingly learning programming skills without

Sonic Pi: Live & Coding Research Report 8 of 28

realising it (Petre & Blackwell, 2007). This project is of interest to audiences seeking to
develop the computing skills of young people because it advances knowledge of how
Raspberry i/Sonic Pi v2.0/live coding can be used as a tool to enhance young people’s
creative skills of digital music and coding and inspire and motivate them to learn and
create new practices in musical composition and performance.
Interest to those seeking to assess live coding skills and quality
Computer programs produced through live coding are subject to assessment issues
which arise, in part, because live coding blurs most concepts of established musical
discourse, such as composer, performer, and audience; instrument, score, and piece;
composition, performance, and improvisation; stage and auditorium; and instrument
and tool (Magnuson, 2014). Live coding practice requires users to become luent with
live coding tools so that they are free to concentrate on musical, rather than technical,
issues (Brown & Sorenson, 2009). As live coding is an ‘intricate dance between human
and machine’ (Collins, 2011), it may result in learners having to contend with additional
complexity (which may not have been encountered had they learned using alternative
means). The importance of the visual presentation of code (Sorensen & Brown, 2007),
and the fact that true liveness is not only manipulation but actually refers to creation
and recreation of code (Magnusson, 2014), are additional factors that may impede the
efective assessment of live code. This project has sought to develop an assessment
framework/assessment advice.

Sonic Pi: Live & Coding Research Report 9 of 28

2. The research process

2.1 Research proposition

SPL&C explored the extent to which arts-led partnerships can use live coding to facilitate
innovative and engaging digital music opportunities and progression routes for young
people, teachers and artists. The testing and development of Sonic Pi v2.0 for Raspberry
Pi was an integral part of the project.
2.2 Research objectives
The research questions were:
1. What are the ‘learning pathways’ that characterise musical performance practices and
programming skills of ‘live coding’ using Sonic Pi v2.0 (as perceived by learners, teachers
and artists) in formal and informal music education?
2. What are the digital music opportunities enabled by ‘live coding’ using Sonic Pi v2.0
(e.g. through composition via whole-class tuition in schools and artist-led masterclasses
in arts venues)?
3. How can arts-led partnerships collaboratively work to develop Sonic Pi v2.0 teaching
and learning practices in formal and informal educational settings?

Research Proposition Illustrated

DIGITAL MUSIC 2 4 YOUNG PEOPLE

OPPORTUNITIES
LEARNING 5
1 TEACHERS 7
PATHWAYS
3 6
LIVE
CODING ARTISTS

Sonic Pi: Live & Coding Research Report 10 of 28

2.3 Key steps and processes
For the multi-site case study, there were four distinct interrelated phases, three of which
comprised the main data collecting phases.

l Legacy materials shared online

PHASE 3B - FINDINGS l Multiple forms of dissemination
Summit and Performance l Journal articles / edited book / forums
l Support launch

l Online toolkit and resource writing

l Final research report
l Final interviews (hubs and other partners)
l Project evaluation
PHASE 3A - FINDINGS Date Sets/Sites:
Analysis / Write up / Toolkit 1. Training
2. School A
3. School B
4. Summer School

l Arts Award Journals

l Observations
PHASE 2B - DELIVERY
l Questionnaires
Case study 3: Summer School
l Performances
at Cambridge Junction l Interviews

l Observations
l Questionnaires
PHASE 2A - DELIVERY l Performances
Case study 1 and 2: Schools l Interviews
l Compositions

l Observation
PHASE 1 - DEVELOPMENT l Interviews
Creative workshops and l Questionnaires
training sessions l Literature Review

During the irst phase, creative workshops and training sessions were led by arts
partner Cambridge Junction via the SPL&C Project Director, Rachel Drury, and Project
Manager, Michelle Brace and the technology partner, Sam Aaron (three 1 day sessions).
The purpose of these sessions was i) to ensure participants understood the project ii)
to develop the delivery team as a team iii) to explain the basics of Sonic Pi iv) to work
collaboratively to build the activities for phase two. A fourth day, led by Martin Russell
from the Royal Opera House Bridge, provided Arts Award Assessor training for the
delivery team. . The second phase involved the two school interventions (Freman College
and Coleridge Community College) where the teaching was led by the instrumental
teachers in collaboration with the music teacher. The technology partner also attended
many of the in school sessions, taking the role of participant observer, assisting when
problems arose and taking in ideas for further development of Sonic Pi. The third phase
involved a ive-day Summer School led by Juneau Projects at Cambridge Junction.

Sonic Pi: Live & Coding Research Report 11 of 28

The outcomes of the project to inform business models and policy for the arts were then
studied through an intensive workshop involving all artist and technology collaborators,
followed by a inal review by the steering group. Finally, the arts, technical, teaching and
business resources that were tested and reined throughout the project were all shared
online, launching at the SPL&C national summit on 4 November 2014.
Data collection (observations, interviews, digital artefacts) took place during the two
six-week interventions at Coleridge Community School in Cambridgeshire and Freman
Community School in Hertfordshire, followed by the week long Summer School at
Cambridge Junction.
In the school settings 28 Year 8 students (at
Coleridge School, six 1 hour 40 minute lessons) and
26 Year 9 students (at Freman School, two 1 hour
lessons per week for six weeks) were shown how to
code music using the Sonic Pi v2.0 software, with
each week focusing on diferent musical and coding
techniques. The course, which took place during
the regular music lessons at Coleridge and during
one hour of music and one hour of ICT at Freman,
was led by the instrumental teacher, with assistance
from the classroom music teacher. The lead artists,
Juneau Projects, led the week three lesson, focusing
on the performance side of live coding, returning
in the week six to lead a inal performance. Juneau
Projects introduced design elements to enhance
and support the music performance aspect of
coding with the use of bespoke controllers to
aid learning in how to get to grips with Sonic Pi.
Creating a performative emphasis on creative
learning, Juneau Projects maximised students’ engagement and focus on imagination
and creative experience to develop learning as evidenced in the potential to motivate
and engage learners, where they become more independent in exploring options for
performance.
Throughout the two six-week trials, the SPL&C unit-of-work sought to address learning
how to code music and compose and arrange tracks, and provided an introduction
to live coding performance, culminating in live coding paired, group and whole class
performances. Focus group interviews were conducted in both school settings with the
students following or near the inal stages of the performance event.
Two weeks later, 57 children aged 10 to 16 took part in a ive-day (10am – 4pm) live
coding Summer School at Cambridge Junction led by Juneau Projects. They were taught
how to use the Sonic Pi software on the Raspberry Pi computer and encouraged to
develop their own artistic responses to the opportunity presented by live coding, with
the week culminating in an afternoon of individual and collaborative performances for

Sonic Pi: Live & Coding Research Report 12 of 28

parents and invited public. The week had many highlights of young people live coding in
response to a diverse set of creative musical and performance tasks and projects. There
was a Sonic Pi X Factor and guest performances each day by professional musicians
and live coders. Many young people included in their performance the use of bespoke
controllers designed to aid the learning process of getting to grips with Sonic Pi. During
the week, daily observations were made, including ilmed diaries, and many of the
students completed written and ilmed diaries in order to be eligible for Bronze Arts
Award. The research focused on the topics of experience, learning and engagement.

2.4 Partnerships: roles and responsibilities

There were nine partner organisations,
two secondary schools, 110 young people
and 20 adults involved in the project as
shown in the igure on the next page.
The learning community and practices
developed as the project proceeded
involved learning relationships that were
built on mutual engagement, and a shared
repertoire of routines, tools and immersive
ways of doing things. The SPL&C learning
partnership was characterised by: (a) a
willingness to utilise each other’s expertise
and experience as their learning resource;
(b) to learn together; and (c) to develop a mutual engagement with each other which
included a trust of one another.

Sonic Pi: Live & Coding Research Report 13 of 28

3. Findings

3.1 Learning from an arts-led partnership

The training methods employed across the irst phase saw a series of interactions
between professionals from diverse disciplines. Partners accessed a multitude of tools
and tasks and strategies. Learning to live code music from the creator of Sonic Pi (who
led parts of three of the four training sessions) was profoundly inspiring and engaging.
Despite being under great pressure and working long and anti-social hours in diverse
portfolio careers, the instrumental teachers, Juneau Projects and Sam Aaron provided
the trust, encouragement, optimism and teaching tasks that teachers then shared with
their classes.
Sam, the creator of Sonic Pi, has this to say:
Rather than a tool that we can use to engage pupils in
Computer Science, which was what the original version
of Sonic Pi was ... we want ... to try and imagine it as a
musical instrument in its own right, where the interface
of the instrument is a programming language ... so one
of the reasons why we got you guys here … you can
help me igure out which bits of this aren’t great and
which bits are great…
The feedback process to the delivery team meant they were in a position of being made
aware of the variety of tools/strategies – tools in their toolkit – available for executing
teaching and learning tasks. Partners were open and availed themselves of a range of
strategies for executing the teaching and supporting the learning of coding.
Ross and Ben, the instrumental teachers and professional musicians who led on the
teaching of Sonic Pi in schools, have this to say:
Ross talking about ‘planning for delivery’:
I think the irst time they see it, it should all be unplugged, physically
unconnected, and we take them through step by step ... When they open it
they’ll see the work on a template. … I think they’ll pick that up
Ben with this insight into planning:
I reckon when you do the lesson, it’ll
probably be best to go in straight, just
with a blank page and get them to
enter stuf – rather than starting with
a template, get them typing in straight
away. I think so, even if they’re playing
just one note.

Sonic Pi: Live & Coding Research Report 14 of 28

When the partners were irst introduced to Sonic Pi they were invited to explore coding
by making a piece of music. Three ways of working were identiied:
1. using an already known piece of music (e.g. ‘Can’t help falling in love’) and writing the
code for this piece;
2. starting with an already known piece of music, but then creating a new arrangement
for this piece by writing the code for the new arrangement;
3. writing the code for a completely new piece of music (a new composition).
Wertsch (1997) points out that although students
often have access to more than one tool (or
strategy) for responding to a task, “they tend to
have a very strong tendency to approach the task
as if only one of the tools is relevant” (p. 229).
This was seen in the initial response to coding
tasks, where each participant seemed to have his/
her own preference of a strategy and used only
this one.
By using feedback as a training method,
participants became aware of the diferent
strategies within the ‘toolkit’ that they could draw
on when training others in future.
Jane, Head of Music, Freman College, has this to say:
I’ve inished my tune … I’ve done ‘Can’t help falling in love with you’ by
Elvis Presley and I’m really satisied … I think if they take some tune they
come across at home, and then experiment in how to do it, and then (trying
to write) the syntax – ultimately it’s more powerful for them than having
somebody say ‘type-play-[audio unclear, but sounds like: l-M] -space’ –
much as it galls us old schoolteachers to let them get on with it, I quite like
what we’ve done so far in watching a demonstration and seeing some code,
and do what I’ve done – write code for something I already know … so, I’d
be interested in experimenting with getting them to play around with a tune
– I do think the carrot for them is to let them play it at the end …
In all sessions of the training and development phase, the sense that all partners and
support staf felt very much a part of a learning community was extremely strong.
Perhaps the excitement of the creator of Sonic Pi leading the training and developing
what would become Sonic Pi v2.0 as he went along and the multiplicity of activities
ofered by Juneau Projects seemed to engage the teachers in planning and relecting on
various activities in their respective phase. There were also indicators of both negotiated
and exploratory pedagogies being used in the school intervention phase, giving students
the full experience of being part of a cutting edge digital arts project.

Sonic Pi: Live & Coding Research Report 15 of 28

Positive joint working approaches developed between partners as they planned together,
regularly discussed learning, and worked together with teachers taking a progressive
route from passive to active role in sessions. They relected together with discussion
between Juneau Projects, instrumental teachers, technology partner, music and
technology teachers (and support staf) following each of the six sessions. The idea of
‘having a go’ seemed particularly powerful in building teacher conidence.
Role of the non-teaching IT Support staff in the classroom
The IT support staf were critical to the success of the intervention phase in both school
settings. They were key in: (a) negotiating school infrastructure; (b) acting as ‘hardware
wrangler’; (c) providing technical problem-solving; and (d) afording encouragement and
freedom. There is a key role for non-teaching staf in the classroom. This dynamic of
introducing enabling/subverting new creative technologies into the school environment
suggests the need for a diferent kind of music teaching and learning as the technologies
engage teachers and learners diferently and open/enable new learning spaces,
freedoms and creativities.
This is what a non-teaching IT support staf had to say about having been given the
opportunity to step into an arts-led partnership project which engaged him in a creative
facilitative role which was transformative. His words underline the importance of efective
interventions to help enable career trajectory and career satisfaction for such staf.
Matt, a non-teaching IT support staf, has this to say:
Working with the backing of all departments in school made the
project really fun. Working with and feeling part of a collaboration like
this, as someone who had never been part of a large project like this
before, felt amazing.
What Juneau Projects said about working
and learning collaboratively:
Working and learning collaboratively
with all the project partners helped us
to develop, reine and relect upon the
project at all stages of the project’s
progression. The initial phase was a
critical point in learning how to engage
with team members informally in
experimental workshops. [The] Sonic
Pi [Project] helped us to develop as
a community and to develop a kind
of communal shared understanding
of what the project was and where it
could go.

Sonic Pi: Live & Coding Research Report 16 of 28

3.2 Some research statistics
The questionnaires
We asked participant students and teachers (both in the two schools and summer
school) to ill in an on-line questionnaire which enquired about their background
information, asked them to rate statements about their thinking, and ofered them a place
for feedback. In addition, the staf of the project completed an evaluation questionnaire.
The questionnaires were validated by piloting and statistical tests and the data was
analysed with a variety of statistical techniques.
Results highlights
The gender distribution of responders was
close to equal in the Sonic Pi Course (48%
Male, 52% Female), but in the summer school
boys were highly over-represented (16%
Female, 84% Male). This distribution highlighted
the fact that computer science is still male
dominated and when students are allowed to
choose courses voluntarily female students
are under-represented in these events. In the
closed items we asked students to rate the
importance of their programming skills and girls
responded almost half-point (-0.45, in a 4-point scale) lower than boys, emphasising
lesser importance of computer programming in their lives. Nevertheless, girls indicated
a somewhat higher (0.57) rating as to what extent music was an important part of
their lives. This was despite the fact that boys participated in more formal training
than girls. These indings show that it would be important to prepare a more female
oriented computing environment to encourage more girls to engage with the subject.
Combining music and programming could become a natural ground for developing such
environments as girls consider music important and adding coding to the equation could
generate their interest in coding as well.
In addition to the gender diferences, the questionnaire analyses have led to a number of
further indings that inform our understanding of digital learning pathways in music:
l The most controversial item in the questionnaire concerned whether students
considered themselves to be musicians or not, with .1 standard deviation higher than
the other questionnaire items. A musician is still regarded as being a highly professional
person and associated with formal training, while in the project we tried to convey that
being a musician could be less high-proile than it sounds.

Statement Mean SD
6a Music is an important part of my life 2.82 0.843
6b I enjoy composing my own music 2.48 0.792
6c I use computers to compose my own music 1.98 0.731
6d I consider myself to be a musician 2.07 0.936

Sonic Pi: Live & Coding Research Report 17 of 28

l Among all skills students rated creativity as the most important skill that the project
nurtured having the highest mean (3) among all items and 82% of students found the
development of creativity as important or very important.

l Getting more formal training and support from schools and family to learn coding and
music was an important factor inluencing how students see themselves as musicians,
programmers and composers. Schools should consider strengthening the training
ofered in these areas.

l The staf of the project considered that they gained enormously from the project (71%
responding gaining more than expected and 29% much more than expected) and all of
them were hoped to continue this work on a larger scale.

Sonic Pi: Live & Coding Research Report 18 of 28

3.3 The students’ perspectives: digital music journeying

Emma and Tom: “It just makes people happy”

Both Emma and Tom have done coding before but for Emma ‘The coding is very diferent
because we didn’t do music coding.’ and for Tom, who is used to Scratch, ‘Scratch is
diferent because you put blocks together. It’s much more simple. This is very diferent
because you have to type up lots of things. But it’s not too hard to understand. You kind
of get used to it.’
So what were their initial reactions? Tom reckons, ‘It’s cool to be able to show people
what you can do. And people show you what they can do. It’s interesting to see what
they’ve done. It’s like a museum where you can go and see really cool projects. It’s
interesting because you can be inspired by them and then create something of your own.
You share your ideas and everyone will then get better at something because you’ll know
how to do things you didn’t used to be able to do.’

Tom’s idea of a good piece of music is, ‘just something you are pleased with.’ Emma
adds, though, ‘you have to believe in yourself to do it. Any type of sound is music.’ As
far as they were concerned, the best song they produced together, ‘… lowed together
and it actually worked and it made you kind of happy and not “Oh, that sounds horrible
I don’t want to listen to it.” You actually wanted to listen to it. You actually want to listen
to the music and not say “Oh, this is dreadful.”’ Tom wrote in his diary at the end of the
irst day that what he found most diicult was ‘creating a song that lowed’ but clearly
he felt they had succeeded. They left inspired and motivated with Emma commenting,
‘I am proud that we’ll be able to do it at home as well.’ Her mother says that they looked
up electronic music and dubstep online and that they talk about it all the time and
continued coding in the evening. Tom printed of an extra page about connecting an LED
to the Raspberry Pi and ones too about how to connect the Raspberry Pi to Scratch.

Sonic Pi: Live & Coding Research Report 19 of 28

On gender imbalance
Emma has this to say: ‘I don’t know [why there aren’t more girls at the Summer School].
I really enjoy this stuf. But as you can see I am a bit of a tomboy. Some girls don’t do
anything really.’ And Tom chips in with, ‘Some girls think that programming isn’t really
their thing because they’ve never really been introduced to it. And they don’t know that
it’s fun. Those girls [who don’t code] just think ‘I don’t really want to do that’.’
On making mistakes
‘There are lots of diferent kinds of mistakes.’ observes Tom. ‘There are some mistakes
where you think ‘Oh this might work’ and you put an extra instrument in but it doesn’t.
And there are some where you accidentally do a typing mistake and therefore you don’t
understand it and kind of give up. It often says ‘It’s not working because of this’. You go
back to that and then you recheck it and just look. We try not to give up. […] You just try
again. You kind of forget [the mistakes] after a while. At the end I didn’t remember it.’
On the kind of perseverance that coding engenders
‘The irst song we made was a bit rubbish. It might
not have been an amazing song but we learned from
that how to use the sleep tool. [In that] song we made
everything go at once and that was dreadful. But the
third song it was something similar to music and then
you just put it on.’ And Emma comments, ‘This has
made me code more. I feel proud of learning. I couldn’t
really code [before].’ Tom endorses this: ‘[I am proud
of] how far we have come because we can now write
a good decent song and a cool instrument using this
program that we only learned how to use a few days
ago. That’s quite impressive and I am proud that we
have come that far that we are able to do that. It’s really
good fun!’’
On the benefits of the summer school
Tom believes the summer school has improved his music skills: ‘I know what goes
together. Like which instruments go together. And you have to listen to it lots of times
because you can’t have something going really fast and something at a random speed
unless that is what you are going for.’ For Emma, it has been a diferent inspiration: ‘I did
the guitar a few months ago and then I stopped because I didn’t like the guitar teacher
and now I’ve seen some of [the artists] and now I want to do it again.’

Sonic Pi: Live & Coding Research Report 20 of 28

On the pleasures of live coding
‘I love building things. […] It’s just one of my hobbies.’ says Tom. ‘I just like building
things. It’s fun and it means that I can enjoy something with a inished product. But I ind
that with things which aren’t really hands on you just end up with a piece of paper with
writing on it or something. And if you build something you can show someone which
is kind of more visual and I like working visually.’ He adds, ‘I made [the controller] quite
similar to the format of a piano because I play the piano. […] And I ind it quite easy to
use both hands at the same time.’ So why else might people enjoy live coding? ‘It’s a
thing that makes them happy. It’s the same reason why people perform normal music on
stage. Why they sing songs. It just makes people happy.’

Oliver: “This is my life now”

Oliver probably had something of a head
start on other students given his home
background: his mother is a musician
and his father a coder who has created
a language called Racket. ‘So that is
why I am interested in programming.’ He
is also fortunate in being well equipped:
‘I am so lucky to have a laptop. My
dad needs all the versions of Mac so I
got his old one.’ Not that programming
necessarily came easy to him: ‘Racket
was hard. It was so diferent. But then I
just kept asking my dad. And a lot of times he had to teach me.’ But it’s not just his dad:
he has his own musical and programming background: he started playing violin when
he was six ‘but then separately eventually I started to do a little bit of coding, starting in
Scratch and then a little bit of Racket.’ He is currently involved in taking private music
composing sessions.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the gap between him and his peers, but also possibly
because of a sense of his own worth in comparison with others, he inds that ‘working
with people is the hardest thing!’ Is this just a stereotypical geek position? He does
come back to this theme frequently: ‘Most diicult [aspect of the project], working with
people…’; ‘With our giant group it’s hard to get everyone on one topic’; ‘I had a partner
and he wanted to do diferent things from me. But then we switched and I had a new
partner. And he just wanted to play Minecraft. I got to code a lot though.’; and ‘It’s kind
of hard to work with other people…’ though he does add ‘…but I like sharing’. (There is
a photo of Oliver working on his own and his two team mates working on their own as
well.) However, he is not entirely oblivious to others and enjoys spreading his expertise: ‘I
really like sharing my code with others and helping others to get better, too. They make
things that are diferent from me and I like seeing what they make after I help them’.
And he is quick to recognise talent in others: ‘It was cool to see Shelley program in
supercollider’.

Sonic Pi: Live & Coding Research Report 21 of 28

There is no doubt that he is extremely motivated and completely immersed in the project.
His diary is illed with comments such as, ‘I liked exploring what I will do tomorrow’ and
‘Today I did awesome live coding’. On day 2 he comments that, ‘I liked the live coding
battles and learning cool things to do’. On day 3 he writes in his diary, ‘Each day I get
more advanced by asking questions’ and he goes home and creates more code, as,
according to his parents, he has done every night. On day 4 he notes that ‘I set up a free
work space so people can try the new version of Sonic Pi’.
How he works
Oliver is noticeably a highly independent
learner who feeds avidly of the project
and develops things in his own way
and on his own paths. He has also
completely internalised the attitude,
indispensable to a coder, that things
don’t always work out right irst time:
‘I keep going and I want more of what
I am doing. And it’s really because
of trial and error. I do something and
then it breaks and then I try again and
then I learn something. And that just
keeps happening over and over. If it
goes quiet or if you break it you can
always recover. The irst mistake I want
to avoid is crashing the machine.’ He is also a true coder in his disdain for the use of
GUIs: ‘I thought about building a controller but to me the controller just seems to limit
things. I don’t really want there to be a limit to what you can do. Why have a button that
prints and plays something when you can just type it and change the number on your
keyboard?’ But despite this lofty viewpoint, he is genuinely generous and impressed by
the professionalism and impact of the project and those running it: ‘The kids love to learn
new things really quickly. The coaches haven’t been stuck on one thing too much. We
have been learning really fast. And also getting results really fast… I haven’t seen anyone
bored at all’.
So was the project a success for this high-lying coder? Before the inal performance, his
mum conides that he carries his Raspberry Pi everywhere with him and says, ‘This is my
life now’.

Sonic Pi: Live & Coding Research Report 22 of 28

 Suki and Sophia: “We just clicked straight away”
There was a predictable gender imbalance at the Summer School so it is maybe
a surprise that Sophia and Suki were there at all. On the one hand they do not see
themselves as coders and have little experience of it, and on the other, they don’t
consider themselves to be musicians either. Suki is quite clear on this: ‘I don’t really like
doing music. I used to play piano but I stopped. It’s not that I don’t like doing it, it’s just
that I wouldn’t see myself as a musician. I prefer sports. I think I like the programming bit
more than the music bit.’ So why aren’t there more girls here? Suki speculates that, ‘They
might rather be doing shopping,’ and Sophia concurs: ‘They might like fashion and not
this computer stuf.’ So in what way are these two girls diferent? ‘I like trying new things,’
says Suki, whose dad is a programmer.
Outnumbered by boys and starting from a low skill-base, it would be quite natural for
them to feel a little overawed and intimidated, yet they develop excellent strategies for
coping with the demands of the Summer School. Importantly, they immediately gel and
work tightly as a team. When asked if they like working together, they simultaneously
and enthusiastically say ‘yes!’. The reason? ‘We seem to agree on the same things.’ And
Sophia expands on this: ‘My brother sometimes says that his partner doesn’t cooperate;
that he doesn’t like the same things and so I think that we are good partners because we
actually like the same things. I think [agreeing on things] makes it funnier because you
have no big conversations and you don’t have to compromise.’ Suki notes in her diary
that there is no division of labour in their team, they are ‘working together on everything’.
This is apparent when, for example, watching them building a box; they work really
collaboratively and ask each other questions: “Is this good?” “ Is this the right size?”
Nevertheless, there are anxieties that inhibit them. They are, with good cause, worried
about performing on stage. Suki is worried about how she would cope with technical
problems in public: “When we listened to Shelley she said that plenty of times the
computers crashed,’ and Sophia agrees: ‘Something could fault. Something could crash.
You could mess up and maybe it doesn’t play and you are on stage and you are standing
there. […] That’s probably a bit scary.’ And then there are the boys: ‘When we were doing
the coding-war thing someone, when it didn’t work or something, everyone said ‘boo!’

Sonic Pi: Live & Coding Research Report 23 of 28

and the people on stage, I felt bad for them,’ says Sophia. And it’s not just seeing others
getting a hard time. Suki adds, ‘And one time we were up there and sometimes people
can be discouraging. A boy started yelling at us and we were like ‘Ok, whatever’ but it
can be scary going on stage. That’s why we are not doing live coding on stage.’
So instead of a performance, they decide to build a controller. Did they make the
controller because they still found coding a little bit scary? ‘That might be part of it as
well,’ admits Suki and Sophia quite reasonably points out that ‘We only had a little bit of
time [to learn to code].’ They ind live coding diicult and get easily discouraged when
things don’t go well. Sometimes the computer crashes - and Sophia writes in her diary,
‘What I found most diicult was getting the song to actually play, because ours would
sometimes not play.’
However, despite their lack of
conidence and their fears of having
their inadequacies exposed to
unsympathetic scrutiny, they clearly
ind their own way through the ive days
expertly, get a lot from it and, above
all, enjoy it. What are the things they
learned and enjoyed? Suki can over-
ride her anxieties and comment that,
‘It doesn’t seem like a school. It’s more
like a club that is fun and that you can
choose to [do it]. Everyone is really nice
here and you don’t have to worry about
anything. And the other people. You
see what they can do and how diferent
they are and how diferent you can be.
Basically what I am trying to say is that it doesn’t matter what other people think. You
just do what you think is right. Thor was very inspiring because it was not the computer
he loved, it was the music he loved.’ And meeting Shelley has inspired Suki to feel that, ‘If
you don’t get what you want at irst you can improve it and have something better.’ They
were pleased with their controller.
Suki again, ‘I didn’t have any idea what we were going to do but once we got started [the
controller] really began to look great. I am really pleased with how it turned out. And she
adds, ’I’d like to do more complicated code. Not just do Raspberry Pi coding but also
other programs. That would be fun to ind out. There’s diferent ways…’. However, what
shines through most clearly is the friendship that has developed between the two girls.
Sophia says, ‘We just clicked straight away.’ Suki agrees: ‘We didn’t know each other
before we came here and this is really fun.’ And Sophia relects, ‘We’ve found
new friends.’

Sonic Pi: Live & Coding Research Report 24 of 28

4. Insights and implications

4.1 Developing artists and audiences through

engagement with young people and learning
Cambridge Junction has a
long track record of delivering
high quality creative learning
programmes and experiences, both
in schools and at the venue. They
played a lead role in this project,
as the overall project manager and
through the recruitment of the lead
artists, introducing arts-led ways
of working that led to inspiring and
positive experience for everyone
involved as well as excellent and
innovative outcomes. Further, they
demonstrated how a performing arts venue and the unique opportunities they provide
to engage with the professional arts sector can validate the experiences of learners as
performers.
SPL&C encourages young people, as well as their friends and families, to see themselves
as a creatively engaged audience and artists, participating in live arts rather than simply
receiving it via digital media consumption products. Thriving community culture depends
on the presence of local creative contexts, which is very much in contrast to the global
corporate model of media consumption usually associated with digital content. This
project is based on the user-testing in schools of Sonic Pi v2.0 and brings together
meaningfully the abundance of expertise, skills, digital artists, cutting edge technology,
arts organisations, schools and universities. Arts organisations and artists can provide
a unique contribution to user testing processes and the trialing digital education tools
to complement and/or enhance what goes on in the classroom. This in turn helps to
generate future artists, participants and audiences.

Sonic Pi: Live & Coding Research Report 25 of 28

4.2 Next steps
It seems apparent that arts-cultural and education sectors need radical change in ways
which emphasise arts-led digital media partnership imperatives. Indeed, it would be
somewhat surprising if the overwhelming push towards marketisation in the neo-liberal
policy regimes of the last thirty years in education and the dynamics of arts organisations
together with work in the cultural realm, do not bring considerable innovation in multi-
agency partnership work. We need more efective strategies that empower and enable
collaboration across subject disciplines (e.g. particularly between music and computing
teachers, and between instrumental teachers and non-teaching staf), paying particular
attention to the closely related issue of arts-led partnerships:
1. Young people emphasised the pleasures, rewards and satisfactions of live coding.
The potential for digital music-making to reform arts and the education sector requires
inter-organisational multi-agency collaborations to act as a catalyst for arts-led
educational change.
2. Crossing the boundary between subject discipline teacher teams leads to
innovative team teaching. The delight in the discovery of new possibilities and the
co-creation and implementation of a new activity-based live-coding pedagogy will
require paying particular attention to the closely related issue of what constitutes the
relationship between innovative processes and product in creative learning and how
to assess the learning pathways. Some of the many excitements about Sonic Pi v2.0
inspired diverse forms of creative learning which was evidenced by involvement in
high-quality creative work in: (a) coding (from simple to complex pathways); (b) digital
music-making (ideas, inventiveness and development); and (c) performance activity
(and its unique quality of ‘liveness’).
3. Negotiating, co-creating, mutuality, reciprocity and scafolding are qualities of rich
collaborations which enable and support the co-construction of efective arts-led
partnerships by communities of interdisciplinary experts. Developing ways in which the
arts and education sector learning environments are transformed by the integration of

Sonic Pi: Live & Coding Research Report 26 of 28

coding into teaching and learning practices will depend on the vision and enterprise
of senior management teams and policy makers. The model of business and arts-led
activity systems developed through this project’s collaborations between professional
performing artists, arts organisations and schools calls for digital performance-oriented
entrepreneurial events of this kind, along with boundary crossing which triggers and
embraces risk-taking as a source of creative learning and coding literacy.
4. Itinerant teachers need not be isolated, working in silos, but should rather be people
who take on extra responsibility beyond traditional roles as instrumental teacher
employees – roles that are redeined by the diverse ways they are charged with, and
expected to work across, multiple projects that implement new directional music learning
and new performance enactments. These would involve overlapping teams in the area
of inter-organisational music learning and multi-voicedness activity. Time for discussion,
relection and planning was decisively important for the evolution of collaborative work
teams that co-construct innovative teaching and learning activity.

4.3 Planning for new projects: a glimpse of the future

The next stages of this project involve the broader deployment and support of the
toolkit validated in this study. However, we also see opportunities to further advance
this creative digital agenda, in which young people are empowered to develop artistic
performance practices of their own.
SPL&C has proved to be a fantastic initiative that has brought together a strong group
of partners and we are keen to ind ways to build on this success and our collective
ambition for the future.
Options for the further artistic exploration of Sonic Pi is being explored by Cambridge
Junction with the Raspberry Pi Foundation and Sonic Pi creator, Sam Aaron.
The partners are looking at how they can embed and expand the project within their
own local partnership by increasing the number of schools engaging with SPL&C within
Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire, as well as across the wider East of England area
covered by the two Bridge partners, Norfolk & Norwich Festival and the Royal Opera
House. They will continue to share their learning with other local hubs as they develop.
To achieve the expansion identiied, the model is being reined using this research to
consider how best they can be delivered in a sustainable way. Additional funding will be
sought to support the achievements of these ambitions.

Sonic Pi: Live & Coding Research Report 27 of 28

5. References
Bacon, L. (2014). Vive La Revolution. ITNOW, 56(1),
62-63.
Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The
‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the
evidence. British journal of educational technology,
39(5), 775-786.
Black, J., Brodie, J., Curzon, P., Myketiak, C.,
McOwan, P. W., & Meagher, L. R. (2013). Making
computing interesting to school students: teachers’
perspectives. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM
conference on Innovation and technology in
computer science education (pp. 255-260). ACM.
Brown, A. R., & Sorensen, A. C. (2007). aa-cell in
practice: An approach to musical live coding. In
Proceedings of the International Computer Music
Conference (pp. 292-299). International Computer
Music Association.
Carter, L. (2006). Why students with an apparent
aptitude for computer science don’t choose to major
in computer science. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (Vol.
38, No. 1, pp. 27-31). ACM.
Collins, N. (2011). Live coding of consequence.
Leonardo, 44(3), 207-211. doi:10.1162/LEON_a_00164
Drummond, S. A. (2009). Investigating the Impact
of Entry Qualiications on Student Performance in
Computing Programmes at Undergraduate Level.
Doctoral Thesis. Durham University. Available
online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/154/ (Accessed 17th
September 2014).
Field, A. (2007) New forms of composition and how
to enable them. In J. Finney and P. Burnard (Eds.)
Music Education with Digital Technology. London:
Continuum, pp. 156-168.
Hesmondhalgh, D. and Baker, S. (20122) Creative
Labour: Media Work in Three Cultural Industries.
London: Routledge.
Magnusson, T. (2014). Herding Cats: Observing Live
Coding in the Wild. Computer Music Journal, 38(1),
8-16.
Sonic Pi: Live & Coding Research Report
Maloney, J. H., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y., Resnick, M.,
& Rusk, N. (2008). Programming by choice: urban
youth learning programming with scratch. In ACM
SIGCSE Bulletin (Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 367-371). ACM.
McAuley, A. (2012). BCS Consultations - Call to
respond to: Removing the duty on maintained
schools to follow the information and communication
technology (ICT) Programmes of Study, Attainment
Targets and statutory assessment arrangements.
British Computer Society.
Petre, M., & Blackwell, A. F. (2007). Children
as unwitting end-user programmers. In Visual
Languages and Human-Centric Computing, 2007.
VL/HCC 2007. IEEE Symposium on (pp. 239-242).
IEEE.
Peyton Jones, S. (2013). Computer science as a
school subject. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM
SIGPLAN international conference on Functional
programming (pp. 159-160). ACM.
Pritchard, D., & Vasiga, T. (2013). CS circles: an in-
browser python course for beginners. In Proceeding
of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer
science education (pp. 591-596). ACM.
Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández,
A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., ... &
Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: programming for all.
Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60-67.
Seraini, G. (2011). Teaching programming at
primary schools: visions, experiences, and long-
term research prospects. In Informatics in Schools.
Contributing to 21st Century Education (pp. 143-154).
Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Sorenson, A. and Brown, A. (2009) Interacting with
generative music through live coding. Contemporary
Music Review 28(10), 17-29.
28 of 28
 π)))
Sonic Pi